Modern ships of warReed, Edward J. (Edward James), Sir
History
Modern ships of war
Reed, Edward J. (Edward James), Sir
Navies; Warships
“There are double cellular sides between the belt and upper decks;
the main bulkheads are carried up high above water; hatches and
openings are trunked up and protected by coffer-dams. In short,
every possible precaution is taken to subdivide into compartments,
and thus limit the spaces to which water can find access when the
outer sides are penetrated or shattered, as well as to facilitate
the work of stopping temporarily shot-holes in the sides.
“Now, without in the least intending to discredit the work of the
French designers, I have to state that no corresponding or equal
precautions have been taken in the portions of their ships lying
above the belt-decks. And the absence of these features in the
French ships is a great relative advantage to the English ships.
Of course there is nothing to hinder the French from imitating
our practice, but they are content to take the risks involved in
a simpler construction, and in so doing they show their practical
disbelief in the doctrine of armor-protected stability. I am aware
that some eminent authorities do not concur with this view, and
maintain that stability and buoyancy should be guaranteed by armor.
To this point I will revert hereafter, but for the present I am
content to say that, as between the French ships and the _Admiral_
class, the most serious risks of damage by gun-fire in action
are of the same kind, and, practically, are not affected by the
shortening of the armor-belts in the English ships.
“Next I would refer to the differences which are undoubtedly
involved in shortening the belts of the English ships. In the
first place, by dispensing with the side armor towards the
extremities a very considerable saving is effected in the weight
and the cost of the armor fitted to the ships. Mr. Barnaby has
recently given an illustration of this, where a ship, in other
respects unchanged, has to be increased from 10,000 to 11,000 tons
in displacement in order to carry the shallow armor-belt to the
ends. In the _Collingwood_ herself quite as large a proportionate
increase of size would be involved in having a thick armor-belt
from stem to stern. This saving in weight and cost of armor might,
of course, be purchased too dearly, if dispensing with the armor
involved possibly fatal risks to the ship. However the result
may be attained, there is universal agreement that a ship-of-war
should have her buoyancy, stability, and trim guaranteed as far
as possible against the effects of damage in action. Now, in the
_Admiral_ class this matter was very carefully investigated before
the design was approved. In order to prevent derangement of the
trim of the vessels by penetration of the light sides above the
protective deck at one end, arrangements were made in the design by
means of which water can be introduced into the spaces occupied by
coal-bunkers, etc., before the ships go into action.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account